My colleague had read and reviewed my article on gender and governance in Sulawesi, and I could almost hear the irritation, though I was actually reading an email. I was accused of bias, of making generalizations without evidence. This response was stimulated by my statement that gender relations in Southeast Asia are more equitable than in most parts of the world. Where had I got this idea? I hadn’t cited anyone. This was because, within my own field, this conclusion is well established and accepted. This colleague had assumed that I, like many others, was maligning Africa, though that had not been my intention.
But this response got me thinking. We talked about the ways in which outsiders assess gender relations in any society. Conclusions about this topic are always filtered through one gender or the other and through one’s own cultural assumptions and expectations—try as we might to avoid these. I’d seen the invisibility of actual gender roles over and over again. Foreigners or city people come and stand in a field in a developing country where women are harvesting a crop, with no men in sight; and the conversation will be about the ‘farmers’—assumed to be men even with the women farmers working there in plain sight; and the extension or the agricultural inputs will be destined for the men.
But the problem goes beyond this kind of obvious blindness. There are layers of ways in which actual practice is filtered as we interpret what is happening. We listen to the words that even local people use to explain their own behavior, but these may be idealized versions of reality; or they may reflect an earlier practice that has changed, sometimes even unnoticed by the participants; or the explanations may be colored by people’s desire to appear in a good light (whether according to their own values or those of the powerful outsider), to curry favor or strengthen alliances.
Our particular interests also color what we see. For decades now, gender specialists (including myself) have expended considerable energy proving that women are involved in productive activity. In fact, that has by now been shown. But so busy were we proving that, that we failed to notice what was happening in the domestic world, the world that many women prioritize and where many services or functions crucial to the reproduction of human society occur—an arena in which men could also benefit (gaining intimacy and nurturance).
In the mid-1970s, Peggy Sanday wrote an article in which she divided human energies into production, reproduction and defense. For decades, we’ve at least recognized the existence of production and reproduction; but we somehow seem to have forgotten about the energies (and enculturation) devoted to defense. As I’ve pondered the recent literature, some of which has claimed to be focused on the male gender, I’ve been shocked at the negative images that these studies portray—despite the obvious positive contributions men make to society. Such analyses emphasize warfare, violence against women and sexually transmitted diseases!
It has crossed my mind that perhaps these emphases are related to the truth of Sanday’s observation: that part of human energy has been, and continues to be, devoted to defense. Perhaps we need to look at those elements of gendered enculturation that prepare people, mostly men, for warfare too. On the positive side, these include strength, courage, protectiveness, teamwork, discipline—qualities it could be good to strengthen in all people. But there has been a negative side as well, that side highlighted by gender specialists; strength can be used for good or ill. And our expectations for men (‘providing’, ‘protecting’), particularly where economic conditions and/or political instability may preclude men from actually meeting these expectations, may transmute into the very problems so highlighted. A man, frustrated in his ability to provide for his family, may turn that frustration onto his wife; a Veteran who has struggled with the moral dilemmas of a warrior, may seek oblivion in drugs, alcohol, or sexual excess.
Doesn’t it seem possible that we—as human beings—need to turn our attention to gender issues (production, reproduction and defense) and think through what we really want for men and women—and ultimately for our children—in this changing world? Physical strength, though always a plus, will be less and less needed as we meet our needs for subsistence and production. But some of the traits traditionally sought in warriors can be valuable in anyone—there is striving, leadership, cooperation in any human endeavour. Men’s perceived monopoly on production has already begun to give way. Some now call for more male involvement in ‘the care economy’ or ‘reproductive activity’. Isn’t it time to think about fashioning a pan-human set of characteristics we would like to see, one that maximizes both men’s and women’s freedom to choose the activities and strengths that best fit with their own personality and preferences, rather than those dictated by rather arbitrary gender roles?
Our propensity for ‘culture’ means that we have a say in how things are structured; we are free to construct ‘narratives’ (guidelines for ourselves, based on what we think makes sense); we need not be bound by what has come before.